Yes.Okay, so the content of thought isn’t completely irrelevant – it points either to AE, or to other thoughts. Got it. The content is not actual experience, but often points to actual experience. As container, however, thought is actual experience.
Yes.It does refer to experience [content], but the content is still just imaginary / not actual experience.
Exactly.Yeah, there’s no one and nothing that “has” the experience or the realisation. Until the daydream is seen as a daydream, it’s just taken to be real. And it’s not exactly that it’s “taken to be real”, rather it’s just not seen as imaginary. Not seen as just the content of thought.
Yes, nice description.Yes, the sensation gives the daydream “grounding” in actual experience. It gives it a “place to anchor”, so to speak. The sensation is attributed to the content of the daydream, giving it a false reality.
Good. Just keep noticing this.They’re subtle – hard to spot. Facial movement seem to be the main thing that the label “me” attaches to. A raise of the eyebrows, a sigh, even just expressions that the face makes – subtle “me” labels attach to them often. But it’s seen quite clearly, when looked at, that it’s just a combination of a sensation + a subtle thought, the imaginary content of which is “me”. With more looking, they are noticed more often.
Yes, but this is not the only reason why effort cannot be experienced.And because there can’t be effort without an entity, effort doesn’t point to anything in actual experience either. The two things, effort and the one who makes effort, “disappear” simultaneously.
Since what would be the experience of effort? A sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Usually, what we call effort (in everyday language) is some thoughts + accompanying contracted sensations.
And the thoughts are not the AE of effort, but the AE of thoughts only.
And the sensations are not the AE of effort either, but the AE of sensations only.
There is literally no experience of effort (with or without an entity), since effort is only a concept, and concepts cannot be experienced. Can you see this?
This awareing is the simple ‘recognition’ of the presence of an object (thought, sensation, sound, etc).Could we talk a bit about "aware-ing"? Not a standalone awareness which only exists in the imaginary content of thought, but just the aware-ing that's happening now - the aware-ing of seeing, the aware-ing of sensation, the aware-ing of thought... What is this aware-ing?
Until recently, the aware-ing of experience has always been viewed as the faculty of an entity. "My awareness", "I am conscious", etc. But without an entity, there's just colour-awareing, sound-aware-ing, sensation-aware-ing... It seems almost magical. The "everything" is "conscious-ing". Language is failing here.
But as soon as a thought is present it is already known.
Since thought comes with the knowing/awareing of it.
Since these are not two, but one phenomenon.
There cannot be anything without automatically knowing it.
Probably the reason why it’s popular to conclude that everything is consciousness or awareness, because there is the illusion of a continuous existence of knowing through the passing of time.
Do you remember of the coin analogy?
That although a coin has two sides, head (knowing) and tail (known), there is only one coin.
There is no separate head (knowing) or separate tail (known).
And do you remember that we also talked about that experience is just artificially divided up into 6 elements (sound, color, taste, smell, sensation, thought), and in reality there is no division in experience?
Let’s say in a moment in experience there is color + thought + sound + the knowing of them.
So it’s knowingcolorthoughtsound = knowingexperience
In the next moment the sound ‘element’ is suddenly gone, so only color + thought + knowing left.
Which is: knowingcolorthought
But suddenly a sensation appears as an inseparable part of experience, so there is: sensation + color + thought + knowing.
Which is: knowingsensationcolorthought
So experience cannot be without the knowing of it.
But there is a seeming change in experience by the seeming coming and going of its ‘elements’.
So it seems that the coin’s tail (known) is constantly changing.
However the coin’s head (knowing) seems to be stable, unchanging, constant.
This SEEMING constancy of the head (knowing) and the SEEMING change of the tail (known: experience) give the impression, an ILLUSION of an ever present knower/knowing/consciousness as a background for the seemingly changing phenomena of the known.
But actually, there is no continuous line of knowing/awareness on which the changing elements appear.
If there are ten coins put next to each other, we cannot say that there is only one continuous head (knowing) as a background to which all the ten tails (known: experience) is linked to (appear in).
Rather there are these coins:
knowingcolorthoughtsound = knowingexperience
knowingcolorthought = knowingexperience
knowingsensationcolorthought = knowingexperience
knowingsensation = knowingexperience
knowingcolorsensation = knowingexperience
but: no experience no knowing – no coin
So it seems that there are consecutive coins (kowingexperience) following each other, but when there is no experience then there is no knowing either. There is no continuous knowing/awaring linking all the coins into one thread.
Rather with each ‘die off’ of experience the knowing of it gone too.
And when the first coin is gone and is replaced by the second coin, only the thought ‘element’ of the tail’s experience is saying that there was a previous coin where the elements of the experience were in different configuration and the head (knowing) of the coin stayed the same, thus there is a continuous knowing/consciousness in the background linking all experience into a line of time of happenings.
Please read through my above explanation a few times very slowly.
Let me know if any part of it is not clear. Although, I’m not sure if it answers your question.
Next, we have to look at the illusion of time and cause and effect.